|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
On Monday, November 3, 2014 9:36:42 AM UTC-8, snidely wrote:
On Monday, November 3, 2014 2:57:04 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote: This sort of thing grates on my nerves. An "explosion" is a very specific thing (in layman's terms, "boom!"). Breaking apart by means of aerodynamic forces is not an "explosion". Reporters need to get this sort of thing right. Well, the initial reports were being made from a less-than-ideal vantage point, so there's lots of opportunity to be confused. Also, at least 1 timeline has something like burn started, went out at 2 seconds, and then had a hard start. Presumably that would provide mechanical shocks, which might have been a factor. /dps |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 3:03:51 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... On Monday, November 3, 2014 2:57:04 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote: This sort of thing grates on my nerves. An "explosion" is a very specific thing (in layman's terms, "boom!"). Breaking apart by means of aerodynamic forces is not an "explosion". Reporters need to get this sort of thing right. Well, the initial reports were being made from a less-than-ideal vantage point, so there's lots of opportunity to be confused. Saying there was an "explosion" is clearly an incorrect conclusion of sorts. We can say that now, but it was less clear when only ground observer reports were available. You can argue that weasel words were needed ... "/appears/ to have exploded" ... but headline writers don't usually have room for weasel words, and witnesses often forget to add them. /dps "they're wrong, but we can understand why" |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 3:03:51 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... On Monday, November 3, 2014 2:57:04 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote: This sort of thing grates on my nerves. An "explosion" is a very specific thing (in layman's terms, "boom!"). Breaking apart by means of aerodynamic forces is not an "explosion". Reporters need to get this sort of thing right. Well, the initial reports were being made from a less-than-ideal vantage point, so there's lots of opportunity to be confused. Saying there was an "explosion" is clearly an incorrect conclusion of sorts. We can say that now, but it was less clear when only ground observer reports were available. You can argue that weasel words were needed ... "/appears/ to have exploded" ... but headline writers don't usually have room for weasel words, and witnesses often forget to add them. For the initial reports, it would have been sufficient to say that the aircraft broke apart while in the air. It was unnecessary to speculate why the aircraft broke apart because that was not known at the time. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This week's Carnival of Space is up | Henry Cate | Policy | 0 | July 20th 07 01:06 AM |
Space Memorial Week | Eric Chomko | Policy | 1 | January 31st 07 11:21 PM |
What's up this week in space | nightbat | Misc | 1 | March 30th 06 01:13 AM |
Earth and Space Week cooperation conference hails GMES as example ofbenefits from space | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | February 19th 05 11:39 AM |
Earth and Space Week cooperation conference hails GMES as example of benefits from space | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | February 19th 05 11:39 AM |